PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - scrd.ca · PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE . Thursday,...

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Thursday, September 12, 2013 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AMENDED AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda

PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 2. Mike Davies, Director of Marine Development, Kinder Morgan Canada

Regarding Trans Mountain Pipeline

REPORTS 3. Fortis BC, Eagle Mountain Woodfibre Natural Gas Pipeline Project

Environmental Assessment (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX A pp 1 – 5

4. Woodfibre Liquid Natural Gas Proposal – Export License Application (Regional; Planning Services)

ANNEX B pp 6 – 16

5. INSERT Notes from Shoreline Workshop September 9, 2013 (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX C pp 16a – 16b

6. REPLACE Narrows Inlet Hydro Project Environmental Assessment: Update (Regional Planning Services)

REPLACE ANNEX D with pp 17 – 21a

7. BURNCO Environmental Assessment – Application Information Requirements (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX E pp 22 – 25

8. Food Policy Forum and Food Policy Council (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX F pp 26 – 27

9. Letters Received Regarding Support of BCTS Blocks (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX G pp 28 – 33

10. Elphinstone Logging Focus Communication and Draft BCTS – SCRD Communications Protocol Agreement (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX H pp 34 – 45

11. Potential Telecommunication Tower and Antennae Siting Protocol All Electoral Areas (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX I pp 46 – 87

12. Application for Two Aquaculture Sites by Emerald Sea Farms on Nelson Island Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX J pp 88 – 103

13. Sunshine Coast Rod and Gun Club Land Use Agreement Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX K pp 104 – 147

Planning and Development Committee Amended Agenda Thursday, September 12, 2013 of 3

14. Bylaws to Consider Removing 6 Metre Minimum Width Regulations for Dwellings Electoral Areas A to F (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX L pp 148 – 162

15. REPLACE Zoning Bylaw No. 310 - Draft ‘A Zone’ Electoral Areas B to F (Rural Planning Services)

REPLACE ANNEX M with pp 163 – 182

16. Potential for Site Specific Rezoning without OCP Amendment Electoral Areas A to F (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX N pp 183 – 184

17. Regulation of Wind Power Generation Structures (Building Inspection)

ANNEX O pp 185 – 186

18. Proposed Penalties for Completing Construction without Permits (Building Inspection)

ANNEX P pp 187 – 196

19. Building Department Revenues for July/August, 2013 (Building Inspection)

ANNEX Q pp 197 – 201

20. Bylaw Enforcement Statistics (First Half Year) (Bylaw Compliance)

ANNEX R pp 202

21. BEN Ticketing Issuance Summary – Halfmoon Bay (Bylaw Compliance)

ANNEX S pp 203 – 204

22. Dog Control Statistics First Half 2013 (Animal Control)

ANNEX T pp 205 – 207

23. Hillside Workshop and Helicopter Tour of Hillside and McNab Valley (Hillside)

ANNEX U pp 208 – 209

24. Planning and Development Monthly Report for July/August, 2013 (Regional/Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX V pp 210 – 217

25. Heritage Protocol Committee Minutes of July 29, 2013 (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX W pp 218 – 221

26. Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of July 23, 2013 (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX X pp 222 – 225

27. Natural Resources Advisory Committee Notes of August 7, 2013 (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX Y pp 226 – 227

28. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of July 31, 2013 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX Z pp 228 – 229

29. Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of July 23, 2013 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX AA pp 230 – 232

COMMUNICATIONS

30. Sheila Malcolmson, Chair, Islands Trust Council, dated August 22, 2013 Regarding meeting request submitted to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

ANNEX BB pp 233

Planning and Development Committee Amended Agenda Thursday, September 12, 2013 of 3

31. Sheila Malcolmson, Chair, Islands Trust Council, dated August 22, 2013 Regarding Support for Howe Sound Management Plan

ANNEX CC pp 234

32. ADD AVICC , dated August 1, 2013 Regarding Funding for Tsunami Debris

ANNEX DD pp 235 – 237

REFERRALS AND LATE ITEMS

33. ADD Public Access through Poplars Trailer Park

ANNEX EE pp 238

34. ADD UBCM regarding Coastal Ferries Public Engagement – referral from September 9/13 TAC

VERBAL

IN CAMERA That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Sections 90 (1) (g), (i) and (k) of the Community Charter – “litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality”, “the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose” and “ negotiations and related discussion respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public”.

ADJOURNMENT

\\scrd.ad\files\networkfiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5285 Marine - Environmental\5285-20 Marine Species\Eel Grass\2013-Sept-09 - Shoreline-Forage fish workshop pdc.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 10, 2013 TO: Planning and Development Committee, September 12, 2013 FROM: Stina Hanson, Planning Technician RE: Shoreline-Forage Fish Workshop RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT the September report titled “Shoreline-Forage Fish Workshop” be received

BACKGROUND At the July 25, 2013 the Board adopted resolution 337/13 scheduling a forage fish workshop with Ramona de Graaf, Marine Biologist and Dianne Stanford of the Friends of Forage Fish association on September 9, 2013. Ms. De Graaf and Ms. Stanford prepared an agenda that included a presentation by Patrick Harrison, a landscape architect also working on shoreline developments and their impacts on forage fish and marine habitat. DISCUSSION

The Monday afternoon workshop was well attended by the general public with the approximately twenty attendees augmented by SCRD staff and board members. The Friends of Forage Fish had a wide variety of outreach material available including general information about forage fish and details about their various Sunshine Coast mapping and sampling programs.

Presentations

Ms. de Graaf began the afternoon with a presentation on various species of forage fish, their importance to marine food webs and their spawning habitat needs. She outlined how various types of development (including seawalls, retaining walls, roads and docks) and vegetation removal can impact forage fish spawning grounds and forage fish recruitment. She discussed how other local governments have responded to these issues, and provided an overview of the coastal management strategy for the Comox Valley Regional District. Ms. de Graaf also discussed an ongoing project with the province around developing a standardized assessment tool to identify historical, actual and potential forage fish habitat that may be used in a similar fashion as the Riparian Area Assessment reports.

Ms. Sanford followed with an overview of the work by both the Friends of Forage Fish (sampling to determine the presence of forage fish on beaches throughout the Sunshine Coast) and the Seagrass Conservation Working Group (mapping and restoration work on eelgrass beds throughout the Sunshine Coast). She outlined the importance of this habitat for forage fish and highlighted important eelgrass locations on the Sunshine Coast. Ms. Sanford praised the commitment of volunteers to these community mapping, sampling and restoration projects.

ANNEX C

16a

Staff Report to September 12, 2013 Planning and Development Committee Shoreline - Forage Fish Workshop Page 2 of 2 Mr. Harrison closed the afternoon with a presentation on the soft shore (or Green Shores) approach to waterfront development. He provided a description of coastal erosion issues, including how seawalls and other types of developments (roads, homes etc) can be compromised from continuous abrasion and hydraulic pressure. He also presented a case study of Dick Murphy Park in Campbell River, where he was involved with reconstructing two beaches using soft shore principals to mitigate ongoing erosion issues and provide space for public use. The case study highlighted the importance of grading in the creation of an effective beach profile that can withstand intense wave action. Mr. Harrison also discussed the importance of providing adequate setbacks for roads and trails to ensure there is enough room to create a beach profile, instead of relying on a seawall or rip-rap.

Each presentation was followed by a brief question period, which focused on particular Sunshine Coast related issues, including questions on the accumulation of driftwood on specific beaches, questions about the retaining structures and profiles of prominent SCRD beaches and questions on the merits of anchoring driftwood during shoreline protection works.

Expenses

Staff are still awaiting an invoice for the travel costs for the presenters. The anticipated cost for the workshop (including travel expenses and stipends) is $1,100.00.

CONCLUSION Staff believe the workshop was well attended and provided an excellent overview of ongoing volunteer and community projects, important coastal environmental issues and the importance of various Sunshine Coast habitats to a variety of forage fish.

__________ Stina Hanson Planning Technician

16b

SCRD STAFF REPORT - AMENDED

DATE: August 28, 2013

TO: Planning and Development Committee (September 12, 2013)

FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner

RE: NARROWS INLET HYDRO PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Amendments to Report Additional information is highlighted.

RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT the report titled “Narrows Inlet Hydro Project Environmental Assessment:

Update” dated August 28, 2013 be received for information. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION After the agenda was produced the proponent provided responses to the SCRDD staff comments. This are included below in Attachment A. Two reports were provided to the March 21, 2013 Planning and Development Committee (PDC) agenda. One set out the background regarding the status of the environmental assessment for the Narrows Inlet Hydro Project, on hold at applicant’s request to respond to ‘show stoppers’ and concerns’ raised by the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). The second considered additional information provided by the EAO regarding the draft workplan required from the proponent. Staff provided comments for the Board’s consideration and these were finalized at the Board meeting of April 25, 2013 (resolution 172/13) and sent to the EAO with a copy forwarded to that contact of the Ramona Creek property owners. The applicant considered all the agency comments and provided additional information for review. Due to the deadline set by the EAO and delays in releasing the information, staff were not able to present a report for the Boards consideration prior to sending comments to the EAO on August 15, 2013. The comments can be found in Attachment A. The additional information was posted on the EAO’s public site on August 13, although it was available to staff and members of the EAO’s working group prior to that. SCRD staff informed the contact of the Ramona Creek property owners on August 23 (when staff found that the information was now posted in the public section) to notify him that the information was now available to the public. A link is now on the SCRD website. From the staff’s perspective one main issue is how future reports, studies that would trigger action are disseminated. Staff requested that the SCRD and local residents be given an opportunity to review the information prior to a decision being made, for example to increase the draw down level or construct a weir. Another issue is the potential impact on the Ramona Creek property owners and that they need to be comfortable with the project. They need to be included in any review process especially related to impact on drinking water sources such as increase in suspended solids in Ramona Creek. Staff will update the Board of any changes or new information when it is received.

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (September 12, 2013) Page 2 of 6 Regarding Narrows Inlet EA Update

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5510 Independent Power Projects\5510-20 IPP\Narrows Inlet Additional Reports 2013\2013-Sep-12 PDC report re Narows Inlet update.docx

ATTACHMENT A

The following are comments provided by staff to the EAO on August 15, 2013. They have not been considered by the SCRD Board due to timing of the request from the EAO and the time it has taken to review the documents provided.

A significant concern is the potential impact of the Ramona components on the property owners at the mouth of Ramona Creek. It is clear that Narrows Inlet Hydro Holding Corp (NIHHC) has had regular contact with the property owners, however some may still be concerned (especially those where the creek flows through their property). The main issues relating to the subdivision is water quality (for drinking is total suspended solids are high and/or water chemistry changes beyond the ability for any existing treatment regime) and change in flow that may erode property if the creek ‘moves’.

It is unclear if the reports provided will address this. While some changes are proposed that introduce tests before certain aspects of the project are initiated (draw down and weir construction at Ramona Lake) the key will be how to respond to any incidents after the project is in operation. Detailed, regular monitoring and open information flow to both the SCRD and the property owners is crucial to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to have input into decisions and in how to respond to any detrimental changes.

This process needs to be built into any certificate from the province.

Ramona Lake draw down – The Application proposed to make use of the natural storage capacity of Ramona Lake by drawing down the lake to a maximum of 45m below the natural lake level with no restriction. This raised concern over the potential for levels of suspended solids in the lake to exceed the BC Water Quality Guidelines due to shoreline erosion. NIHHC now proposes an adaptive management system which would limit drawdown to 9m during the first year of operations, 15m during the second year of operations, 20m during the third year of operations and a further 3m in each subsequent year to a maximum of 45m. Turbidity of the water leaving the Lower Ramona tailrace will be continuously monitored and operations stopped if the levels exceed the water quality guidelines. NIHHC commits to each year having a qualified professional review the environmental effects of the drawdown and make a recommendation as to whether or not the next level of drawdown should be authorized the following year. The assessment will include a review of compliance with the water quality guidelines as well as a physical inspection of Ramona Lake which will be completed in the post-freshet period prior to increasing the drawdown.

SCRD staff consider that this is a sensible approach and request that any reports are also sent to the SCRD and Ramona Creek property owners (and made publically available) for review and comment prior to a decision being made to alter draw down level.

Proponent Response: The Proponent agrees to send copies of reports related water quality and Ramona Lake drawdown to the SCRD, the Ramona Creek property owners and to make them publically available on the internet.

Commitment Prior to Weir Construction. The Application proposed construction of a weir at the outlet of Ramona Lake which would allow the lake level to be raised by as much as 3m. This raised concern over the potential for methylmercury formation because of the flooding of approximately 3.7 hectares of land. NIHHC has made a commitment to study the potential for methylmercury formation in the lake and its effects on the aquatic ecosystem prior to construction of the Ramona Lake Weir. If there is a possibility of a significant impact due to methylmercury formation, the weir will not be built. NIHHC proposes that the Ramona Lake weir



be included as part of the authorized works on the Upper Ramona water licence but that the leave to construct not be granted until the study referred to above is complete.

SCRD staff consider that this is a sensible approach and request that any reports are also sent to the SCRD and Ramona Creek property owners for review and comment prior to a decision being made to build the weir.

Proponent Response: The Proponent agrees to send copies of any reports related the potential for methylmercury formation due to construction of a weir on Ramona Lake to the SCRD and the Ramona Creek property owners for comment prior to a decision being made to build the weir.

Benefit to Government –NIHHC anticipates that $5.8 million per year and $600 million over the life time, this includes income tax, royalties, fees and so on. It should be noted that this is not a relevant figure for the SCRD as taxation is collected by senior governments and primarily redistributed to regional districts based upon local budgetary needs. The SCRD in effect requisitions the money from the province to meet expenses allocated in its annual budget. Cost is shared by all property owners and while there may be some relative reduction in residential tax for the Halfmoon Bay Electoral Area this could be offset by changes in property value (which a main determinant for tax level for individual property owners). So the significant amount tax estimated is not directly relevant to the SCRD. Another point is that the total depends upon level of profit (as income tax is included) not just arising from the direct production of energy but also from equity holders (who may not be located in BC let alone in Canada once all the equity stakes are sold and resold). Tax levels can be variable due to the potential for change if senior governments amend the tax code.

There is no direct link in benefit to the local area for any recreation or tourist project that could compensate for industrial/commercial use of the area. The SCRD would welcome discussion with NIHHC about a reasonable community benefit.

Proponent Response: The Proponent will arrange a meeting with the SCRD to discuss community benefits.

Employment and Local Businesses – There will be jobs created, mainly during the construction period and opportunities for local businesses. However there is no guarantee that local residents will benefit. The SCRD cannot (and does not) require a hire local clause; however there should be a commitment to looking locally first for workforce and to the local business community. SCRD staff consider that this is likely as the NIHHC partnership includes local residents who have demonstrated a concern for the community in previous projects that they have been involved with.

Proponent Response: None at present

Traffic Volume During Construction – mainly flights (float planes and helicopters) and boat (barge and crew boat) movement. From the SCRD staff point of view the impact should not be significant providing that flights do not impact any breeding season periods for significant, endangered wildlife. This was a concern raised during consultation for the Box Canyon project in West Howe Sound. A requirement to identifying sensitive periods and eliminating flights in that period is important. With regard to boat movement, the Sechelt Inlet is an important recreation area and care needs to be taken to ensure that parking at moorages towards Sechelt or Egmont is not overwhelmed by the construction crews. It is likely that most activity will be from commercial docks/sites and there should not be any significant impact on parking facilities at public docks/boat launches. However it would be helpful if the contractors are made aware of this and look to limit potential parking problems by using appropriately zoned private parking opportunities.



Proponent Response: The Proponent has made a commitment to include in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) a Noise and Sensory Disturbance Protection Plan (Noise Management Plan). Details of species of concern, locations, timeframes and avoidance distances were included in the Application. The Proponent has also made a commitment to implement measures to reduce operational noise which might affect the Ramona land owners.

The specific site(s) on the Sunshine Coast which will be used to ship material to the site have not been selected but commercial facilities will be used (i.e. the Earles Cove Barge Terminal or Mountain Marine in Sechelt). The Proponent will make contractors aware of the concern with respect to parking and public docks/boat launches and will encourage direct shipping to the site from Vancouver.

Freshwater Fish Habitat (Total Suspended Solids)– concern over increased suspended solids may be mitigated by the proposed draw down regime and follow up studies and information gathering (such as the two monitors, one in the lake and the other after the tailrace for upper Ramona). SCRD request that MFLNRO share the information it receives with the SCRD and that it be made available to the public for review.

Proponent Response: For MFLNRO to respond.

Freshwater Fish Habitat (Habitat Loss) – The proponent estimates that 2.8 Ha of high value habitat will be lost but that this is a fraction of the watershed’s habitat and thus not significant. SCRD staff consider that this is a faulty argument as it ignores cumulative impact as there are other activities that have recently or could soon take place in the watershed that could also have ‘insignificant’ impact; such as the two components of this project that are removed at this time and could form the basis for a future project. Decommissioning in 40+ years will return most of the habitat but the damage will be experienced for some time and could be almost permanent and require substantial investment to address. As noted below any compensation should be in the local area or within the watershed, in-lieu payment is not supported in principle.

Proponent Response: None at present

Freshwater Fish Habitat (Water Quality) – The proponent is proposing collecting `additional information prior to consideration about constructing a weir and raising the lake level 3 m thus flooding land around the lake. The new information points to low risk of methalmercury formation the additional data collection and assessment is a sensible step to take to inform whether the weir is built. To clarify, will the decision to build the weir be made by the province (FLNRO or NIHHC?) In either case the SCRD requests that the study results are forwarded to the SCRD, the Ramona Creek property owners and made publically available before the decision regarding the weir’s construction is made.

Proponent Response: The final decision to construct the weir would rest with FLNRO - Water Allocation Branch who would need to issue a "leave to construct" prior to the weir being built.

As stated above, the Proponent agrees to send copies of any reports related the potential for methylmercury formation due to construction of a weir on Ramona Lake to the SCRD and the Ramona Creek property owners for comment prior to a decision being made to build the weir.

Land Use Zoning – The SCRD recently adopted an amendment to the I9 Zone (the zone used for power projects). This includes identifying the I9 zone as a temporary use permit area (thus allowing the SCRD to consider permits for uses such as temporary concrete batch plants and so on). The amendment also allows for power project components to be located near stream (the zoning bylaw previously expected a variance permit supported by geotechnical or habitat studies if within 15 or 30 m setback to a watercourse/stream; this has been removed. The



SCRD expects the powerhouse site(s) and any potential locations for temporary uses to be zoned appropriately.

Proponent Response: The Proponent will apply for appropriate zoning and all permits required by law.

Habitat Compensation and Mitigation – It is not unusual for details regarding compensation and mitigation to be the subject of future work and discussion as the real impacts will only be know when construction and operation take place. As a matter of principle, the SCRD expects that any habitat compensation will be provided locally, within the project area, as first choice then nearby but in the same watershed as an alternative. Payment in lieu of actual habitat compensation is worrying as there is no guarantee that the funds will be used locally or in a timely fashion. SCRD staff would like to be included in any detailed discussions regarding habitat compensation to allow for input prior to a decision being made.

On-going environmental monitoring will be an essential aspect of understanding impacts and whether any compensation is successful. This needs to be sufficiently resourced and any reports need to be made publically available.

Proponent Response: The Proponent agrees that compensation should be in the local area and that in-lieu payment is a last resort after avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures have been exhausted. The Proponent agrees to including SCRD staff in any detailed discussion regarding habitat compensation.

The Proponent has previously committed to the development of a long-term monitoring program (Operational Environmental Monitoring Program, OEMP), that will include the following components:

- invertebrate drift density, biomass and community composition (all components, where necessary)

- evaluation of compensation and restoration of affected riparian habitats (all components, where necessary)

- continuous monitoring for the first five years of operation water temperature (all components)

- water quality monitoring

- five-year monitoring program to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation measures (all components)

- temperature will be monitored continuously during the first five years of operation (Chickwat)

Ramona Creek Property Owners -

SCRD staff note that NIHHC representatives have been in regular and extensive communication with the property owners. This does not mean that all parties are in agreement about the project or concerns but it demonstrates that communication has and will continue to take place. SCRD staff request that the EAO take a role in making sure that the property owners concerns have been considered to their satisfaction at least regarding an opportunity to have input. Any future reports or studies that are required by senior government prior to decisions, such as changing Ramona Lake draw down, must be forwarded to the property owners so that they have a formal opportunity to have input in to the decision making process. SCRD staff are willing to assist in this providing that the SCRD staff resources are available. Ultimately this will need to be confirmed by a decision of the SCRD Board.



Proponent Response: For EAO to respond.

General Comments –

This is a complex project and there are components/issues that will need to be considered as part of future reports/studies/reviews/decisions. SCRD staff requests that the SCRD and public be kept full informed regarding any future reports/studies/reviews/decisions to allow for SCRD and public input.

There seems to be additional information required by some senior government staff regarding aspects raised in the new information provided by NIHHC to address the concerns/issues raised earlier this year.

It is unfortunate that the recent information provided by NIHHC was not posted on the EA website for public review. This is an issue that should be addressed. The EA process is often in doubt as there is a belief that public input is ignored or unwanted. This process is a case in point that will further increase this belief. No meetings for the public were arranged, information was not available, it was unclear when or if the SCRD could release documents as there were changes made close to the deadline for working group input. SCRD staff request that there be a further public consultation period prior to the EAO report being sent for ministerial consideration.

Proponent Response: As noted above the Proponent will provide copies of those reports which the SCRD has requested. We also note that the recent information provided by NIHHC is posted on the EAO website at: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_document_313_35970.html

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_document_313_35970.html

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.148\2013 Report to PDC A zone Sept 12 Final.doc

SCRD STAFF REPORT - AMENDED

DATE: September 11, 2013 TO: Planning & Development Committee – September 12th, 2013

FROM: Gregory Gebka, Planner

RE: Draft ‘A Zone’ to replace ‘RU3 Zone’ – Zoning Bylaw No. 310

(Electoral Areas B-F) Amendments to Report and Bylaw 310.148 Amendments to this report and the bylaw are highlighted or crossed out. RECOMMENDATION(S) 1. THAT the report entitled “Draft ‘A Zone’ to replace ‘RU3 Zone’ – Zoning Bylaw No.

310” be received;

2. THAT Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148 be forwarded to the Board for First Reading;

2. THAT staff conduct a workshop with Electoral Area Directors to review the

scope and intent of the proposed ‘A Zone’; and

4. THAT Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148 be referred to the following committees and referral agencies for comments:

(a) Areas B-F APCs (b) Roberts Creek OCPC (c) Agricultural Advisory Committee (d) Agricultural Land Commission (e) District of Sechelt (f) Town of Gibsons (g) Sechelt Nation (h) Squamish Nation (i) Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (j) Ministry of Agriculture (k) Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (l) Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure

3. THAT a report be provided to a future Planning and Development Committee

incorporating changes to Bylaw 310.148 identified at the workshop; 4. AND THAT a separate bylaw or bylaws be drafted and referred to the Area B

to F Advisory Planning Commissions to consider proposed site specific amendments to Bylaw 310 to address anomalies where the zoning and Agricultural Land Reserve boundaries do not agree.

AMENDED ANNEX M

163

Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee – September 12, 2013 Page 2 of 5 Draft ‘A Zone’ to replace ‘RU3 Zone’ – Zoning Bylaw No. 310


BACKGROUND Staff found that the version of Bylaw 310.148 included in the agenda package missed a clause regarding changing the zoning map (Schedule A) of Bylaw 310. This is now included at the end of the bylaw. Also some section numbers were changed. In reviewing Schedule A, staff noticed that at least 29 properties or sites across Areas B to F that have anomalies which need to be addressed. The anomalies are either that the property (in whole or part) is within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) but is not zoned Rural Three (RU3) or is zoned RU3 but not in the ALR. Staff are researching the possible causes of these anomalies and considering what amendments may need to be made. Given the scale of new information and the need for additional research, staff consider that it is not appropriate to introduce the information as a late item. In addition, it is considered that any proposed amendments resulting from this work should be the subject of a separate bylaw or bylaws so as to prevent site specific issues complicating consideration of the proposed new Agriculture Zone. Staff will introduce this issue in a separate report for consideration at the Area B to F Advisory Planning Commissions and a report to the next Planning and Development Committee. This will allow for the bylaws that introduce the Agriculture Zone and proposed amendments to individual properties to be considered at the same time. At its meeting of July 25th, the Board adopted the following Corporate & Administrative Services Committee recommendation:

Recommendation No. 22 Zoning Bylaw No. 310 – Draft ‘A Zone’ Update

THAT the Planner’s report titled “Zoning Bylaw No. 310 – Draft ‘A Zone’ Update” be received;

AND THAT staff coordinate a citizen engagement initiative outlining the basic rationale for the ‘A Zone’;

AND THAT staff continue to collaborate with Agricultural Area Plan consultants and Agricultural Advisory Committee to conduct a public opinion survey and opinion poll on key zoning issues;

AND THAT staff report on all community input gained from the public opinion survey and opinion poll;

AND FURTHER THAT Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148 (the ‘A Zone’) be brought forward to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting.

This report introduces Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, and provides additional information and recommendations concerning the draft bylaw, consultation program and. The ‘Road Map for Supporting Agriculture through Zoning”, which focuses on agricultural uses in non-ALR areas including residential and rural zones, will be addressed in a second stage of zoning amendments. DISCUSSION As previously reported, the draft ‘A Zone’ addresses a number of inconsistencies between the current ‘RU3 Zone’ (the ‘rural-agriculture’ zone within Zoning Bylaw No. 310) and the Agricultural Land Commission’s (ALC’s) policies and regulations governing land use within the

164



agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Zoning Bylaw No. 310 is too restrictive and is inconsistent with ALR regulations. Consultation As recently directed by the Board, staff will coordinate a citizen engagement initiative outlining the basic rationale for the ‘A Zone’. At least part of this initiative is anticipated to be in consort with upcoming Agricultural Area Plan public workshops. Draft Bylaw No. 310.148 could be referred to the following committees and agencies for comments: • Areas B-F APCs • Roberts Creek OCPC • Agricultural Advisory Committee • Agricultural Land Commission • District of Sechelt • Town of Gibsons • Sechelt Nation • Squamish Nation • Vancouver Coastal Health Authority • Ministry of Agriculture • Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations • Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure

Initial APC and OCPC comments regarding the draft ‘A Zone’ were summarized in a previous report. To recap, the first round of APC/OCPC consultations generally indicates that:

• perspectives on agriculture vary widely, depending on whether land is in or outside of the ALR. Most people recognize ALR as land where ‘farming comes first’;

• agriculture is generally considered secondary to residential use in residential and rural areas. As such, the degree of acceptance of agriculture in these land use areas also varies widely;

• there is a general desire in Roberts Creek to have more permissive zoning for agricultural activities throughout the community. The Roberts Creek community supports zoning for increased food self-sufficiency;

• there is a general desire in West Howe Sound for residential areas to remain residential, especially in areas with concentrations of small lots.

• Agriculture on the Sunshine Coast is currently small-scale and, with a few exceptions, is in its early stages of development. Draft regulations focusing on industrial-scale agriculture have caused some concern. This approach and its level of detail may not be necessary at this time.

Following initial APC and OCPC comments, agricultural zoning amendments have been simplified where possible. In doing so, draft Bylaw No. 310.148 (attached) is recommended to proceed at this time solely to replace the current ‘RU3 Zone’ with a new ‘A Zone’ that is more consistent with applicable ALR regulations and Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) guidelines. A

165



comparative summary of the draft ‘A Zone’ is enclosed as Attachment ‘A’. A map showing the proposed ‘A Zone’ and how its boundaries coincide with the ALR will be available at the Planning & Development Committee meeting. Both the MoA and the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) were initially consulted when drafting the ‘A Zone’, in effort to meet provincial guidelines and achieve consistency with ALC regulations. Despite initial consultation, additional ALC and MoA comments may be forthcoming. Additional new zoning provisions applicable to non-ALR zones, such as residential areas, will be drafted following additional community engagement this fall.

Consistency with Official Community Plan (Agricultural) Policies Staff reviewed the draft Bylaw No. 310.148 against the agricultural policies of each applicable Official Community Plan (OCP) for consistency. For the most part, the ‘A Zone’ is consistent with applicable OCP policies; however, it is worth noting that:

(1) The Roberts Creek OCP sets out criteria for considering more than three units of agritourism accommodation under temporary use permits, as follows:

• the use is accessory to working farm operations; • the use is on agriculturally designated land that is in the ALR; the • application is consistent with ALC policies; • the working farm will continue in operation and will not be adversely affected; • potable water of sufficient quantity for both farming and non-farming use is available; • sewage disposal facilities are suitable; • on-site parking is adequate; • the impact of increased traffic on adjacent roadways is considered; • the environmental impact of the proposal is considered; and • the impact on adjacent properties is addressed.

The draft ‘A Zone’ sets out the following minimum criteria:

• the parcel area must be at least 2 hectares (4.94 acres); • the campground must not exceed 5% of the parcel area; • the parcel must be classified as a farm for property tax assessment purposes; • adequate off-street parking is provided pursuant to this bylaw; • adequate on-site waste water disposal facilities are provided meeting current

provincial health regulations; • the number of campsites plus the number of bed and breakfast rooms must not

exceed 10.

(2) Under its agriculture policies, the West Howe Sound OCP states that agricultural related retail, such as farm gate sales, garden supply centres, and agri-tourism, may be considered through individual site rezoning applications, with support from the Agricultural Land Commission. It is noted that both the current and proposed zoning

166



bylaws permit ‘farm gate sales’. More discussion with the Area F APC and OCPC may be necessary to clarify the community’s position on agricultural related retail.

(3) Both the Roberts Creek and Elphinstone OCPs appear to consider ‘agriculture’ and ‘keeping livestock’ separately. Bylaw No. 310.148 would redefine ‘agriculture’ as horticulture, or raising livestock including apiculture and land-based aquaculture. If the bylaw proceeds, it is possible to make minor OCP amendments to ensure consistency of terms.

Definition of Agriculture A broader definition of “agriculture”, as proposed, would have implications for other land use zones in which the use is permitted. Zoning Bylaw No. 310 currently permits ‘agriculture’ in the following zones: CR1 CR2 RU1 RU1A RU1B

RU1C RU1D RU2 RU2A RU3

RU3A RU3B CD2

If the definition of ‘agriculture’ changes its focus from primarily growing crops, as in the current zoning bylaw, to more broadly encompassing horticulture or raising livestock including apiculture and land-based aquaculture, then some adjustments will be required, at least for the time being, to maintain the status quo in all non-ALR zones. Options for avoiding any major land use changes within non-ALR zones include: (1) maintaining the current definition of “agriculture” (focused on growing crops), except

under a different name – such as “crop production”. Each non-ALR zone that currently permits ‘agriculture’ would be amended to permit ‘crop production’ in its list of permitted uses;

(2) deleting ‘agriculture’ from the list of permitted uses within each non-ALR zone, as

‘horticulture’ is permitted within all zones; or (3) modifying the proposed new definition of “agriculture” to a different term, such as

“farming”. As such, “farming” under the ‘A Zone’ would mean the use of land, building or structure for horticulture or raising livestock, including apiculture and land-based aquaculture.

Staff recommend Option (1), as the least complicated. Option (2) would likely have implications on agricultural sales, which are permitted under the current definition of ‘agriculture’. Option (3) may cause some confusion under the ‘A Zone’ between ‘farming’ and ‘farm business’.

___________________________ Gregory Gebka, Planner

167

Summary of Draft ‘Agriculture (A) Zone’

The draft ‘A Zone’ is organized under the following list of sections, within which draft provisions are modified following advisory committee comments received to date:

Permitted Uses – in addition to certain uses permitted more broadly under the ‘general provisions’ of the zoning bylaw, this section permits principal uses on lands zoned ‘A’, including agriculture, farm business, and single family dwelling. All of these uses are listed under the ALR Use, Subdivision & Procedure Regulation as ‘farm use activities’ that may be regulated by a local government bylaw but must not be prohibited. In addition to the principal uses, a number of secondary uses are listed, including agricultural product sales, agritourism, secondary suite (see ‘Number of Dwellings’ below), winery or cidery, etc. All of these are listed under the ALR Use, Subdivision & Procedure Regulation as uses that may be regulated by a local government bylaw and potentially prohibited.

Additional Permitted Uses – in addition to the principal uses, on a lot exceeding 1 hectare the draft ‘A Zone’ permits either a limited-width manufactured home or, where authorized by the Agricultural Land Commission, a second single family dwelling. Horse riding, training or boarding facility are also permitted subject to a lot area exceeding 1 hectare. Intensive agriculture is permitted subject to a lot area exceeding 8 hectares.

Site Specific Uses – the draft ‘A Zone’ also replaces the existing ‘RU3A Zone’, which solely permits an existing garden supply centre (‘Quality Farms’ site) on Pratt Road. The existing business is principally a retail store, despite being located in the ALR, where retail sales are permitted only accessory to a farm and up to a certain maximum footprint area (300 m²). In addition the ‘A Zone’ would replace the existing ‘RU3B Zone’, which permits an existing duplex on Burton Road.

Number of Dwellings – As in the current ‘RU3 Zone’, the draft ‘A Zone’ normally

restricts the number of dwellings to two per lot.

In addition, however, the draft ‘A Zone’ also permits a ‘secondary suite’ in an effort to provide more housing options. Permitting secondary suites could result in up to two dwelling units within a single detached house – the principal dwelling unit and a secondary suite. As in the current ‘RU3 Zone’, the draft ‘A Zone’ permits a second single detached house on lots exceeding 1 hectare. When combined with the potential for a secondary suite, in some circumstances this could permit up to four dwelling units on lots exceeding 1 hectare – two single detached dwellings, each with a secondary suite. To encourage innovative, ‘out of the box’ farm housing, the draft ‘A Zone’ allows the number of dwellings to potentially increase to five under specific circumstances where the Regional District has signed a housing agreement with a landowner to provide for farm housing. Minimum criteria for entering into such housing agreement includes the subject lot having an assessed ‘farm’ classification, a land area exceeding 2 hectares (4.94 acres), and each additional dwelling unit having a floor area not exceeding 90 m²

ATTACHMENT A

168

(968.7 ft²). Staff are preparing additional information on the possibility of entering into housing agreements for this purpose.

Areas of Buildings, Structures and Uses – To be consistent with ALC regulations, the

draft ‘A Zone’ sets out various restrictions on floor area, land area and lot coverage occupied by specific activities deemed to be ‘farm uses’ in the ALR. In response to expressed concerns over some permitted ancillary uses such winery or cidery restaurants, in some cases the floor area limits are more restrictive than set out under the ALR Use, Subdivision & Procedure Regulation.

Conditions of Use – the draft ‘A Zone’ sets out conditions on specific uses, mainly in an

effort to be more consistent with ALC regulations.

Temporary Use Permits – In response to AAC subcommittee discussion of the merits of encouraging agritourism activities on farms, the draft ‘A Zone’ permits campground use under temporary use permits. As proposed, the ‘A Zone’ would set out the minimum criteria for considering approving temporary use permits on a case-by-case basis, as follows: - the subject lot having an assessed ‘farm’ classification and a land area exceeding 2

hectares (4.94 acres); - the campground area must not exceed 5% of the lot area. On a 2-hectare lot the

maximum campground area would equal 1000 m² or 0.25 acres; - the combined number of campsites and any bed and breakfast guest rooms limited

to 10.

An earlier draft contained provisions for issuing temporary use permits for temporary farm worker housing. These have been removed, following staff discussions concerning the demand for such housing on the Sunshine Coast at this time. Such provisions could be re-introduced if there is an expressed demand for additional (temporary) housing for farm workers.

Siting – The draft ‘A Zone’ establishes minimum structural setbacks identical to the

‘RU3 Zone’. In addition, minimum setbacks are also stipulated for various specific agricultural buildings, structures and uses from lot lines, watercourses and waterbodies. These proposed agricultural setbacks are largely based on provincial guidelines, with certain modifications, as initially recommended by the AAC subcommittee. More recently, parcel line setback provisions for ‘stormwater detention ponds’, ‘on-farm composting’ and ‘wood waste storage’ have been eliminated, in an effort to simplify the ‘A Zone’.

Lot Coverage – The draft ‘A Zone’ sets out the maximum lot coverage identical to the

‘RU3 Zone’. In addition, the ‘A Zone’ sets out a maximum 50% greenhouse lot coverage, which is less than the MoA guideline of 75%.

169

Comparing the ‘A Zone’ to the ‘RU3 Zone’ The ‘A Zone’ is drafted with the intent of being relatively permissive of agriculture and other related activities deemed to be ‘farm uses’ within the ALR. In summary, the draft ‘A Zone’:

permits ‘agriculture’ on ALR lands under more broadly defined terms, including rearing livestock. While rearing livestock is currently permitted in most zones under Bylaw No. 310, its general provisions limit the rearing livestock, including aquaculture, “for domestic consumption only”.

permits a ‘farm business’ and ‘intensive agriculture’, though the latter would require a minimum 8-hectare lot area. Agriculture is considered somewhat disjunctively under Bylaw No. 310, as it is defined as ‘growing crops’, while also permitting ‘keeping of livestock’ for domestic consumption only, and ‘keeping of less than 50 pigs’ on lots exceeding 1.75 hectares. The ‘A Zone’ would make it clear that agriculture, including intensive agriculture and farm operations, are permitted on ALR lands, though with some restriction on intensive agriculture, as noted. If additional zoning restrictions on farm uses are deemed necessary, they could be introduced to the draft bylaw, though some may require Ministerial approval.

permits ‘agricultural product sales’ more expressly than the currently under Zoning Bylaw No. 310 – subject to certain limits on sales area, as per ALC regulations.

permits a secondary suite within a single detached dwelling, whereas the ‘RU3 Zone’ does not. Secondary suites are proposed to be defined as a limited-size accessory dwelling located within or attached to a single detached dwelling. To encourage affordable housing, additional secondary suites could potentially be permitted more broadly in other zones where single detached dwellings are permitted;

continues to permit kennels only in Elphinstone and West Howe Sound, subject to a 15-metre lot line setback.

permits ‘agritourism’, whereas the ‘RU3 Zone’ does not (other than in the form of a bed & breakfast). Recognizing that farms could potentially be tourist destinations complementary to agriculture, the ‘A Zone’ permits agritourism and tourist accommodation in the form of campgrounds, subject to a temporary use permit. Various minimum criteria are set out in the ‘A Zone’ for considering such use on a temporary basis, including in place of bed and breakfast use;

permits an additional, second single detached dwelling on lots exceeding 1 hectare, similar to the ‘RU3 Zone’, Unlike the ‘RU3 Zone, however, the draft ‘A Zone’ stipulates a second, additional dwelling must be either a limited-width manufactured home occupied by either the principal resident’s immediate family or by farm workers or a second single family dwelling where authorized by the Agricultural Land Commission;

permits winery or cidery as an accessory use, including a small restaurant. The ‘RU3 Zone’ does not permit any of these uses. A winery or cidery is permitted on a lot where at least 50% of the ingredients are produced on the same farm or on a lot exceeding 2 hectares so long as at least 50% of the product ingredients are produced in BC under a minimum three-year contract – as stipulated by ALC regulations;

170

permits brewery and creamery as an ancillary use. The ‘RU3 Zone’ does not permit either use. Each use is permitted on a lot where at least 50% of the ingredients are produced on the same farm, consistent with the ALR Use, Subdivision & Procedure Regulation;

permits ‘farm research and education’ subject to a specific maximum lot coverage – as per ALC regulations;

permits ‘horse riding, training or boarding facilities’, whereas the ‘RU3 Zone’ does not. Horse riding, training and boarding facilities are deemed a ‘farm use’ in the ALR and, as such, can be regulated under a zoning bylaw but must not be prohibited. The use would be limited to three horse stalls per hectare to a maximum of 40 stalls, consistent with ALC regulations;

permits two site-specific uses, as permitted in the existing ‘RU3A’ and ‘RU3B’ Zones;

stipulates setbacks from lot lines, watercourses and waterbodies for farming activities such as farm buildings having confined livestock, mushroom growing and solid waste storage facilities. Most of the proposed setbacks are based on MoA guidelines; however, following AAC input, slightly reduced front yard setbacks are proposed in some cases;

stipulates maximum lot coverages identical to the ‘RU3 Zone’. Unlike the ‘RU3 Zone’; however, the ‘A Zone’ would stipulate maximum greenhouse lot coverage, exclusive of other buildings, of 50%, less than the 75% greenhouse lot coverage recommended through MoA guidelines.

171

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 310.148, 2013

A bylaw to amend the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District in open meeting assembled enacts as follows: PART A – CITATION

1. This bylaw may be cited as the “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2013”.

PART B – AMENDMENT

2. Amend Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 as follows:

(a) replace throughout Bylaw No. 310 all uses of the terms: “horticultural sales” with “horticultural product sales” “riding stable and academy” with “horse riding, training or boarding facility” “RU3”, “RU3A” and “RU3B” with “A” “Rural Three”, “Rural Three – A”, and “Rural Three – B” with “Agriculture”

(b) Part III by replacing “RU3 Rural Three” and “RU3A Rural Three - A” with “A Agriculture”;

(c) Part V by inserting into Columns I and II, as follows:

COLUMN I COLUMN II Class of Building or Use Parking Spaces Agritourism accommodation 1 per accommodation unit

(d) Part X by replacing the term “agriculture” with “crop production”

(e) Part X by deleting sections 1021, 1021A and 1021B and replacing as follows:

A Zone (Agriculture) 1021 Permitted Uses 1021.1 The following uses are permitted in the A zone:

(1) agriculture (2) farm business (3) single family dwelling (4) kennel, in Elphinstone and West Howe Sound only (5) uses permitted in section 502(1) (6) secondary suite

172

(7) agritourism excluding agritourism accommodation [see section 1021.5(2)] (8) agricultural product sales [see sections 1021.7(2) and 1021.8(2)] (9) winery or cidery [see sections 1021.7 and 1021.8(4)] (10) brewery [see sections 1021.7(4) and 1021.8(5)] (11) restaurant [see section 1021.7(3)] (12) creamery [see section 1021.7(4) and 1021.8(5)] (13) farm research and education [see section 1021.7(5)] (14) animal slaughter or processing [see section 1021.8(1)] (15) storing farm machinery, implements, agricultural products and supplies

ancillary to a farm business (16) home occupation [see section 502(10)] (17) bed and breakfast [see sections 502(11) and 1021.5(2)(f) ]

Additional Permitted Uses 1021.2 On a parcel having an area exceeding 1 hectare (2.47 acres) the following additional

uses are permitted:

(1) either one manufactured home, up to 9 metres (29.5 feet) wide, for housing: (a) the principal resident’s immediate family; or (b) farm workers or

(2) a second single family dwelling in Electoral Areas B, D and F, where authorized

by the Agricultural Land Commission;

(3) horse riding, training or boarding facility [see section 1021.8(3)] 1021.3 Intensive agriculture is permitted on a parcel having an area exceeding 8 hectares

(19.8 acres).

Site Specific Uses

1021.4 (1) A garden supply centre is permitted on Lot 17, District Lot 682, Plan 13714. (2) An additional dwelling to create a duplex is permitted on Lot B, Block H,

District Lot 903, Plan 1866 in place of a second single family dwelling

Temporary Uses

1021.5 (1) The A zone is designated as a temporary use permit area for the purpose of permitting temporary campgrounds in Electoral Areas B, D and E.

173

(2) A temporary use permit for a campground in Elphinstone, Roberts Creek or Halfmoon Bay may be issued where:

(a) the parcel area must be at least 2 hectares (4.94 acres); (b) the campground must not exceed 5% of the parcel area; (c) the parcel must be classified as a farm for property tax assessment purposes;

(d) adequate off-street parking is provided pursuant to this bylaw;

(e) adequate on-site waste water disposal facilities are provided meeting current

provincial health regulations; and

(f) The number of campsites plus the number of bed and breakfast rooms must not exceed 10.

Number of Dwellings 1021.6 (1) The number of dwellings on a parcel must not exceed two, except as permitted by sections 1021.2, 1021.4(2) and 1021.6(2).

(2) The maximum number of dwellings permitted on a parcel may be increased by

up to three additional dwellings where:

(a) the parcel area exceeds 2 hectares (4.94 acres); (b) all or part of the parcel is classified as a farm for property tax assessment

purposes; (c) all additional dwellings on the parcel are necessary to farm use; (d) the owner and the Regional District have entered into a housing agreement

for all dwellings and farm use on the parcel; and

(e) Agricultural Land Commission approval is received.

Areas of Buildings, Structures and Uses

1021.7 (1) The parcel coverage of all buildings and structures used as part of a park, including biodiversity conservation, passive recreation, heritage, wildlife and scenery viewing, is limited to 100 m² (1076.4 ft²).

(2) Agricultural product sales may consist of a combined total indoor and outdoor

sales area of 300 m2 (3229.2 ft²), including an open air stand, provided that the use conforms to section 1021.8(2).

(3) A winery or cidery may include a restaurant:

174

(a) having a floor area not exceeding 100 m² (1076.4 ft²), provided that the indoor seating capacity does not exceed 30; and

(b) an outdoor seating area area not exceeding 50 m² (538.2 ft²). (4) A winery or cidery, brewery or a creamery may include:

(a) product preparation, processing and storage; (b) a retail sales area not exceeding 100 m² (1076.4 ft²);

(c) on-site tours.

(5) The parcel coverage of all buildings, structures used solely for farm education and research is limited to 100 m² (1076.4 ft²).

Conditions of Use

1021.8 (1) At least 50% of animals slaughtered and farm product processed, packaged or

stored by an animal slaughter or processing facility must be reared and produced on the same farm.

(2) Agricultural product sales are permitted only if at least 50% of the sales area is

limited to the sale of products produced on the same farm. (3) A horse riding, training or boarding facility may contain up to three horse stalls

per hectare to a maximum of 40 per parcel.

(4) A winery or cidery must have either: (a) at least 50% of the ingredients used for wine or cider products produced on

the same farm, or (b) a land area more than 2 hectares (4.94 acres) and, unless otherwise

authorized by the Agricultural Land Commission, at least 50% of the total farm product for processing provided by a British Columbia farm under a minimum three-year contract;

(5) A brewery or creamery must have at least 50% of the ingredients used for

producing beer or creamery products produced on the same farm.

Siting

1021.10 (1) Except as otherwise provided for in this section, no building or structure may be

situated within:

(a) 5 metres (16.4 feet) of a front and rear parcel line; (b) 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) of a side parcel line, except where the side parcel line

abuts a road, in which case the minimum setback to side parcel line is 4.5 metres (14.8 feet).

175

(2) Except as specified under subsection (3), agricultural and farming activities, uses, buildings and structures must be situated a minimum distance from a parcel line, as follows:

use of land, building or structure

parcel line setback

front or abutting ALR all other

farm buildings, structures, or outdoor storage areas, except as otherwise provided for in this section

5 metres (16.4 feet) 5 metres (16.4 feet)

farm buildings, structures, or outdoor storage areas having confined livestock areas including up to 1 agricultural unit AU of swine.


farm buildings, structures, or outdoor storage areas having confined livestock areas including more than 1 AU of swine.

25 metres (82 feet) 30 metres (98.4 feet)

animal slaughter or processing 25 metres (82 feet) 30 metres (98.4 feet)

greenhouse containing no artificial lighting 5 metres (16.4 feet) 5 metres (16.4 feet)

greenhouse containing artificial lighting 15 metres (32.8 feet) 15 metres (49.2 feet)

kennel, including outdoor runs 15 metres (49.2 feet) 15 metres (49.2 feet)

agricultural product sales except open air stand 5 metres (16.4 feet) 5 metres (16.4 feet)

agritourism campground (where permitted) 25 metres (82 feet) 30 metres (98.4 feet)

agricultural solid or liquid waste storage facility 25 metres (82 feet) 30 metres (98.4 feet)

chemical storage structure 5 metres (16.4 feet) 7.5 metres (24.6 feet)

power generator rated to emitting less than 55 dBA, as measured within 15 metres of a parcel line


power generator emitting 55 dBA or more, as measured within 15 metres of a parcel line


mushroom growing medium preparation and storage


soilless medium preparation 10 metres (32.8 feet) 15 metres (49.2 feet)

soilless medium storage 5 metres (16.4 feet) 7.5 metres (24.6 feet)

(3) Agricultural and farm activities, uses, buildings and structures must be situated a

minimum distance from the natural boundary of a watercourse or waterbody, as follows:

176

Parcel Coverage

1021.11 Parcel coverage must not exceed 15%, except:

(1) on a parcel having an area less than or equal to 2000 m² (0.49 acres) parcel coverage must not exceed 35%;

(2) greenhouse parcel coverage, exclusive of all other parcel coverage, must not

exceed 50%.

(f) Amend Part II by deleting the following definitions: “agriculture” “aquaculture” “aquaculture processing” “campground” “feed lot” “garden nursery” “garden supply centre” “horticultural sales” “horticulture” “kennel” “silviculture” “waterbody” “watercourse” and replacing and inserting the following new definitions:

“agricultural building” means a building used in relation to agriculture, intensive agriculture or a farm, but does not include a dwelling; “agricultural product sales” means the use of land, building or structure for the sale of

use, building or structure watercourse / waterbody setback

confined livestock area containing 10 or fewer AUs animal slaughter or processing agricultural solid waste storage facility agricultural liquid waste storage facility mushroom barn composting or compost storage chemical storage structure wood waste storage

15 metres

confined livestock area with more than 10 AUs seasonal feeding areas agricultural solid waste field storage

30 metres

177

local agricultural products including horticultural products, dairy, eggs, meats, apicultural products, aquacultural products, wines, ciders, beers, or creamery products, which are either: grown, produced and sold on a parcel that is principally used a residence, farm,

community garden; or sold at a farmers market, yard sale, or commercial establishment conducting retail

sales or wholesale sales; “agricultural unit” or “AU” means an equivalent live farm animal weight corresponding to 455 kg (1000 lbs) for livestock, poultry or farmed game, or any combination these equaling 455 kg (1000 lbs); “agriculture” means the use of land, building or structure for horticulture or rearing livestock, including apiculture and land-based aquaculture. It may include agricultural product sales and storing farm machinery, implements, agricultural products and supplies;

“agritourism” means temporary or seasonal activities such as farm tours, hay rides and fish ponds that promote or market farm products grown, raised or processed on a parcel classified for assessment purposes as a farm;

“agroforestry” means the system or practice of integrating woody perennials with crops or livestock on an agricultural parcel for ecological or economic benefit;

“animal slaughter or processing” means a facility for slaughtering livestock, or cutting, eviscerating, sectioning, deboning, smoking, curing or packaging meat or meat products; “aquaculture” means growing and harvesting fish, shellfish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants. It may include: cleaning, icing and storage of fish raised for a period of at least 90 days on the same

parcel or adjacent upland parcel; cleaning, storage, shucking and packaging of shellfish, molluscs, crustaceans and

marine algae; It excludes: aquaculture processing not described in this definition; disposing fish offal on the same site; storing fish offal outdoors; using float houses, suction or dredging harvest methods; “aquaculture processing” means treating, preparing, smoking, packaging, cooking or canning of fish, shellfish, molluscs, crustaceans or marine algae for sale and distribution. It includes preparing, manufacturing fish offal for use in or as fish feed or

178

compost, and excludes any other treating, preparing or rendering not described in this definition; “campground” means land used and maintained for the temporary accommodation of visiting travellers or the general public in tents or recreational vehicles except park model recreational vehicles or mobile homes. “community garden” means land, buildings and structures maintained for horticulture by an organization, society or other collective group of people; “confined livestock area” means an outdoor, non-grazing area, where livestock, poultry, or farmed game is confined by fences, other structures or topography, and includes feedlots, paddocks, corrals, exercise yards, and holding areas, but does not include a seasonal feeding area; “creamery” means a facility where milk and cream are processed and where butter or cheese are produced. “crop production” (a) means cultivating, producing or harvesting crops and marketing and selling the crops harvested on the same parcel; (b) includes:

(i) the storage and sale on a farm of the crops harvested on the same farm;

(ii) the storage on a farm of farm machinery, implements and supplies used on that farm;

(iii) repairs on a farm to farm machinery and implements used on the same farm;

(c) excludes rearing livestock and all manufacturing, processing,

storage and repairs not referred to in this definition; “dBA” means ‘A-weighted decibel”, a unit of measuring sound in which the A-weighting reflects how people respond to sound; “farm” means an area of land consisting of one or more contiguous or non-contiguous parcels that may be owned, rented or leased as a farm operation, which comprises and is managed as a single farm;

“farm business” means a business in which one or more farm operations are conducted, and may include farm education and research related to agricultural production on one or more of the farm operations;

“farm research and education” means land, buildings or structures dedicated to researching, promoting and teaching methods of agriculture and farming;

“farm operation” means an agricultural business involving any of the following activities:

179

growing, producing, raising or keeping animals or plants, including mushrooms, or the primary products of those plants or animals;

clearing, draining, irrigating or cultivating land;

using farm machinery, equipment, devices, materials and structures;

conducting any other agricultural activity on, in or over land in accordance with the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act;

“farmers market” means the use of land, buildings or structures for agricultural product sales or horticultural product sales by individuals associated with a local farming community, usually within an open air environment designated for individual retailers and may also include retailing locally produced art and crafts; “garden nursery” means the use of land, buildings or structures for the propagation and growing of trees and plants to transplant, cut or clip for sale; “garden supply centre” means the use of land, buildings or structures for wholesale or retail sale of trees, plants, seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, garden tools, animal feed and bedding, pet supplies, landscape supplies and related accessories; “greenhouse” means a translucent-clad structure that is used for horticulture and is of sufficient size for one or more persons to work within it; “horse riding, training or boarding facility” means the use of land, buildings or structures for the keeping of horses being trained and cared for, which may also include training and instructing equestrian riders; “horticultural product sales” means the use of land, buildings or structures for the sale of locally grown fruits, vegetables, flowers or ornamental plants that are either: grown, produced and sold on a parcel that is principally used as a residence, farm,

community garden, school or other institutional use; or sold at a farmers market, yard sale, commercial establishment conducting retail

sales or wholesale sales; “horticulture” means the growing of fruits, vegetables, herbs, flowers and ornamental plants; “intensive agriculture” means a farm operation that grows mushrooms commercially or confines more than 5 AUs per hectare for commercial food production; “kennel” means the use of land, buildings or structures for boarding, breeding, providing care or training of more than three dogs, except a domestic litter born on the same parcel, either commercially or not-for-profit, and where pet supplies may be incidentally stored and made available for sale.

180

“livestock” means domestic farm animals including poultry, bees reared through apiculture, fish or other aquatic animals raised through aquaculture; “manufactured home” means a single family dwelling manufactured in a factory setting in one or more sections, and transported and situated in place for occupancy; “poultry” means domestic birds typically raised for the consumption of eggs or meat such as chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese, pheasants, quail, game birds and ratites; “restaurant” means the use of a building where food is prepared and offered for sale or sold to the public for immediate consumption including cafe, cafeteria, ‘take-out’ facility, ice-cream shop, tea or lunch room, dairy bar, coffee shop, or a snack bar; “retail sales” means the use of land, building or structure for the sale of goods to the public; “sales area” means floor area or land area where customers may freely peruse, select and purchase products that are for sale; “silviculture” means the lifecycle development, maintenance and care of forests for the purpose of growing crops of trees having economic value; “secondary suite” means an auxiliary dwelling unit that is located within, or attached to, a single family dwelling; “temporary farm worker accommodation” means a dwelling, which may contain one or more sleeping units, sanitary facilities and not more than one cooking facility, specifically designed to accommodate seasonal farm workers during the growing or harvest season; “waterbody” means a body of fresh water or salt water; “watercourse” means a naturally occurring or man-made channel that conveys water, whether regularly or intermittently, which may include a stream, brook, ditch, creek, spring, ravine, swamp or gulch; “wholesale sales” means the sale of goods in quantity, typically for resale by retailers, contractors, and other bulk purchasers;

3. Schedule A of Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area Zoning Bylaw 310, 1987 is hereby amended by rezoning the “Rural Three”, “Rural Three A” and “Rural Three B” zones to the “Agriculture Zone”.

181

PART C – ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this DAY OF 2013 READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF 2013 PUBLIC HEARING held pursuant to LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF 2013 APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 of the TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2013 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2013 ADOPTION this DAY OF 2013_

___________________________ Corporate Officer ____________________________ Chair

182

Susan Hunt

From: Iris Hesketh-Boles [iheskethboles@ubcm .calSent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:45 AMSubject: Tsunami Debris Funding & Letter from District of SparwoodAttachments: District of Sparwood re Coal Shipping Facilities.pdf

Pleaseforward to your elected officials, the CAO and staff tasked with managing tsunami debris. Thankyou.

Funding for Tsunami DebrisThe Japanese people, through the Government of Japan, have provided a one-time grant of funds to assistwith the cleanup of tsunami debris along British Columbia’s shores. Those funds have been directedthrough Environment Canada to the BC Ministry of Environment for administration.

Earlier this week, the Province issued a news release outlining the process for local governments andFirst Nations communities affected by the tsunami debris to apply for funds.

The news release can be found at:http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/20 13/0 7/province-accepting-proposals-for-tsunami-debris-cleanup.html

The application process can be found at:http://env.gov.bc.ca/epd/tsunami-debris/pdf/TsunamiDebrisCleanupFundsApplicationProcess 20130718.pdf

Proposals to Develop Coal Shipping Facilities Within the Metro Vancouver RegionThe District of Sparwood has asked that the attached letter be distributed to AVICC members.

ris HesketnBoiesAViCC Executive CoordinatorLoca Government House Office Manager525 Government St. Victoria, BC V8V 0A8Te: 250-356-5122 fax: 250-356-5119EM: [email protected] / ubcm.ca

The Compass: Weekly News and information from UBCM — subscribe forfree at www.ubcm.ca

1

ANNEX DD

235

SPARWOOD

July 4, 2013

Greg Moore, ChairGreater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD)/Metro Vancouver

4330 KingswayBurnaby, B.C. V5H 4G8

Dear Chair Moore,

Re: Proposals to Develop Coal Shipping Facilities within the Port Metro Vancouver System

District of Sparwood Council unanimously supported a resolution at their Meeting of June 24, 2013

regarding support for the expansion of coal shipping facilities within the Port Metro Vancouver system.

Council is writing to express our strong and unwavering support for BC’s coal industry and the economic

activity and jobs created in our community, region, province, and country through the coal supply chain.

Coal mining is part of Sparwood’s history. It has been our economic heart for more than 100 years. It is

this connection to the coal supply chain that creates high paying employment opportunities for families in

our community, throughout the province and across the country. The coal mining industry creates over

26,000 jobs in mining, transport, equipment and other related sectors, and generates over $5 billion in

economic activity each year, including about $400 million in revenues that go to support critical public

services such as health care and education. Restricting or delaying the development of the coal supply

chain will result in the loss of a livelihood for a significant number of families in British Columbia and

impact the government’s ability to deliver public services

Research has noted that coal is not a toxic substance and is, in fact, inert. Transport Canada does not

classify coal as a dangerous or hazardous material and further, the International Agency for Research on

Cancer (IARC) does not list coal as possibly carcinogenic to humans or as a carcinogenic agent. As for

the environmental and safety regulations that are in place regarding Canada’s mining operations, the

regulatory expectations are among the highest in the world. Precautions are taken every step of the way

to ensure the health of safety of the communities not only where mines are located, but along the rail

lines as well.

Dust suppression systems, monitoring, and investigation programs are extensive. They are present in all

of the region’s terminals and any concerns are fully investigated. Additionally, discharge of air or water

from a terminal is regulated and controlled by permit. . . .2/

Box 520136 Spruce AvenueSporwood, BC VOB 2G0

Phone: 250 425 6271Fox: 250 4257277

236

Rail carriers within the Province of BC have also taken it upon themselves to implement dust mitigation

programs which have been designed to address concerns related to dust releases from rail cars that are

in transit.

Coal is important to the District of Sparwood, the Province of BC, and Canada. It is an important

commodity for steel and energy production on a global scale - so much so that the coal exports from the

Elk Valley alone account for 1% of the GDP. Steelmaking coal is a vital part of everyday life around the

world, It is used to produce household appliances, automobiles, accommodations, rapid transit vehicles,

and business infrastructure. As the lower mainland looks to expand its rapid transit system, steel made

from coal remains an important part of that expansion plan. Let us not forget that steel also is critical in

green energy production and that 100 tonnes of steelmalcing coal is required to produce the 185 tonnes of

steel used in a typical wind turbine.

The impact of coal from a global perspective is also worth noting. Not only is the use of coal as an energy

source critical to developed and developing nations economies, almost half of the world’s population

relies of coal as their primary energy source. Quality of life, as well as economic improvement is related to

access to electricity. Without this access, millions of people will remain in poverty.

Rigorous regulatory and environmental processes, along with the responsibility for public consultation on

projects such as the port expansion need to continue to occur. Respectful dialogue and fact driven

information that recognizes all sides of the discussion is critical to this process. As part of this process,

the District of Sparwood would like to reiterate our strong support for the important role BC’s coal industry

plays in the economic lives British Columbians.

Yo truly,

Mayor

RM/rm

PC: Robin Silvester, President and CEO; Port Metro Vancouver

Paul Van Buynder, VP, Public Health/Chief Medical Officer; Fraser Health AuthorityMembers of the UBCMDave Wilks, MP Kootenay ColumbiaHonourable Bill Bennett, MLA Kootenay EastDistrict of ElkfordCity of FernieMunicipality of Crows nest PassRegional District of East KootenayTeck Coal Ltd.

237

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

£¤101

MOONDANCE PL

CASTLE RD

HARR

Y RD

8

ROW looking north

ROW Plan BCP 30471 infavour of SCRD.

Poplars Trailer Park

Location of fence

ANNEX EE

238

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - scrd.ca · PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE . Thursday,...

Documents

Transcript of PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - scrd.ca · PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE . Thursday,...